Archive for September, 2005

What is really cool is the center section in which stories are ranked in terms of the conversation – based on comments. This is a fantastic idea. Those that are participating in the news, get to set the editorial flow.

Also love the scroll through treatment of the mast area. Idea. Also like how they have moved away from the traditional industry segmentation navigation. And a new, Media 2.0 news section. That’s smart.

This is a vastly improved version of an important news site. Anyway, I’ll keep looking and sharing views.

Like the new look and feel – and RSS at last. As I sat in my office looking at a foot-high stack of decidedly un-environmentally friendly magazines it struck me that I could do without them all given the publishers themselves would embrace the web fully.

When I resubscribed to AdAge over the weekend I got the option to pay a little more for the digital print edition – that’s the print edition in digital format. I had to download Zinio to be able to read it. I really like this idea. It’s enormously compelling.

Most communicators struggle to pull together strong presentations for and with their excutives. But for a few, the effort to drive simplicity is more than often nuked by executives that would rather push more content onto slides than listen to good counsel.

Steve Jobs not only listens, he is in a league of his own. Take a look at this terrific view of his recent Nano preso. It is a text book case-study in how a presentation should be… Zen like.

James has an interesting post inspired by Armadgeddon (a great read for any AR professional). While I think they (Armadgeddon) are probably placing a little too much emphasis on Insystek naming Gartner as a partner, the point James makes that:

Categories are breaking down like tundra. That is why you have to go with the flow. Can the major analyst firms afford to do that, though? RedMonk can. Macehiter Ward Dutton can. Quocirca can. If you work for an independent analyst firm and agree with any of this why don’t you leave a comment.

James then goes on to point to the "mass amateurization" that is underpinning this… The term "mass amateurization" is a terrible one in my book – if only because it frames those not engaged as professionals. However, information and dialog is increasibgly getting open sourced by folks who aren’t paid to do analysis. They are using participatory technologies to drive their own knowledge into the public domain. Traditionally the value of this commentary was diminished in that it was single voice. Now it tends to be informed by a collective.

Some of the big analyst firms get this, some don’t. But so long as CIOs and VCs continue to place so much emphasis on "Magic Qadrants" (and believe me, there is a fair degree of magic involved), the big analysts will continue to weild enormous power.

Like James I love Clay Shirky’s writings and thinking. One thing is clear to me though, and that is a huge amount is assumed in relation to the intelligence and time of the buyer. Most have lots of one, but not both. Or are lacking on both counts. Thus, they turn to the magic quadrant and conventional analysis. This points to one of the key benefits of the large analyst firm – information utility. I’m not talking quality, just utility – which often replaces quality in most decision making.

And this is where James’ point hits home. Now we have technology which is fusing information, dialog and utility. All of which is going to make for a very interesting period of time.